Abuse allegation tossed, but case haunts ex-detective

Thursday

Aug 22, 2013 at 7:06 PM

A secret investigation by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services labeled him an “indicator” of child sexual abuse. For Carl “Chuck” Smith II, that classification led to his firing as an Anderson County detective and to years of effort and costly legal appeals to clear his name.

The Associated Press

A secret investigation by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services labeled him an “indicator” of child sexual abuse. For Carl “Chuck” Smith II, that classification led to his firing as an Anderson County detective and to years of effort and costly legal appeals to clear his name.

Smith finally prevailed last year, when a Roane County chancellor ruled the DCS “indicator” finding was unfounded and dismissed it. But the DCS designation, even after it was discredited, continues to haunt the 39-year-old Harriman man.

Smith this month sought his old job back, but the three-member Anderson County Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Board denied his request. Board members said that at the time he was fired in November 2009 that Smith was under suspicion for child abuse, and that was reason enough then for his termination.

The case puts a spotlight on DCS procedures and its policy for identifying and classifying people in suspected child abuse cases. That DCS probe and its “indicator” findings concluded there was insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction, but there was reason for an “indication” of child sexual abuse.

DCS guidelines for labeling an indication of child abuse say there must be a “preponderance of evidence” but not necessarily proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required to obtain a criminal conviction. Proof can range from physical evidence to a witness’ statement to the suspect’s admission of abuse.

In Smith’s case, the DCS decision was apparently based only on the statements of the 11-year-old girl, who in a DCS interview admitted, “I had a little trouble with lying and stuff.” The girl in that March 2005 interview alleged Smith showed her magazines with “people having sex” shortly after Smith and the girl’s mother had talked with her “about sex and stuff.”

The girl also told the interviewer that Smith had briefly exposed himself. But when asked by the interviewer if she got a “good look” at his genitals, the girl responded, “not really.”

No action was taken for years regarding the DCS findings against Smith until well after he was hired in November 2007 by the Sheriff’s Department. More than a year later, in December 2008, another sheriff’s department investigator said he had learned “through confidential means” of the old DCS investigation against Smith, according to a department memo that month.

A DCS supervisor in Anderson County was contacted, and the case was reopened. Since DCS investigations are confidential, no details of that DCS review are available. Some DCS records from Smith’s case became available to the Knoxville News Sentinel when they were introduced during his Civil Service hearing this month.

In February 2009, DCS sent a letter to the Sheriff’s Department that Smith had been “indicated” as a perpetrator of sexual abuse. That DCS letter stated that since Smith was a detective “in a caretaker, supervisory, instructional, or treatment role,” it was an “emergency situation.”

“You should take immediate action to ensure that the individual is no threat to any child in their care,” Lisa M. Lund, DCS case reviewer, wrote to the Sheriff’s Department. Smith appealed the DCS designation, which was upheld in a hearing first before an administrative judge and then affirmed by the DCS commissioner.

After those DCS appeals were exhausted, Anderson County Sheriff Paul White fired Smith in November 2009. In a letter then to the Civil Service Board, Smith first requested an appeal of his termination, saying it was based on “false and unfounded allegations.”

Smith insisted on his innocence, and appealed the DCS ruling to Roane County Chancery Court.

See HAUNTS, Page 2A

And in July 2012, Chancellor Frank V. Williams III rendered his judgment on the case, ruling that the DCS finding was unfounded.

Williams in his opinion said the child made “conflicting statements” and revealed “additional information under circumstances that raise questions about the accuracy or truthfulness of her allegations.”

“Are the courts to give credit to the testimony of a child under circumstances that would discredit an adult witness?” the chancellor asked in his ruling.

“The record clearly displays such inconsistencies, and later-added information as would make an adult witness appear unreliable if not untruthful,” Williams opined.

The chancellor said the DCS “has concluded that the child should be believed regardless of these obvious problems.”

During the Aug. 6 Civil Service hearing, the sheriff said Smith could reapply for his old job. But Smith’s attorney, David Wigler, called that a “hollow invitation,” according to a draft of the meeting’s minutes.

“You’re not going to hire my client back,” Wigler told White, those minutes show. Wigler in a subsequent interview said he is reviewing the Civil Service decision “and evaluating an appeal.”

The child, now 16, is in her grandmother’s custody. Efforts to contact Smith for comment were unsuccessful.